jump to last post 1-7 of 7 discussions (116 posts)

What lies beneath, the party of bigotry and hatred.

  1. Josak profile image60
    Josakposted 4 years ago

    What we see this election cycle is a GOP desperately trying to hide it's darker side with already failed economic policy, Romney has pledged to amend the constitution to make same sex marriage illegal (so much for small government huh) and the GOP has put the prohibition of ALL abortions including of pregnancy due to rape on it's party charter. Knowing full well how repugnant most find these measures they have refused to discuss them by crying "it's the economy stupid" as if that compensates for a platform based on discrimination and an antithesis to freedom.

    1. profile image0
      SassySue1963posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Josak, really, more "they're all Bush" rhetoric. It is not an already failed economic policy. It hasn't been implemented. The failed economic policy is that of the last four years. The slowest recovery EVER since WWII. The unemployment rate just went UP again. The true unemployment rate is 14.6. We didn't even create half the jobs we need just to sustain let alone grow the economy last month. These are proven failed policies.
      Nice line about the amendment however, you leave out this little tidbit, that he also supports the recognition of domestic partnerships which would include shared health benefits and right of survivorship. In other words, all the rights of a married couple. If it is about rights and not about forcing a belief system on those who believe otherwise, then why isn't that alright?
      There was a movement for an amendment to define rape. It did not make abortion in cases of rape, incest or the mother's life illegal. Nor is there anything at all in the GOP platform about it. You can read the entire platform here:
      http://www.gop.com/2012-republican-platform_home/

      1. innersmiff profile image79
        innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        What makes me laugh about this is that economic policy has stayed essentially the same since Woodrow Wilson.

      2. Josak profile image60
        Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Abortion:

        national level
        http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politic … story.html

        State level
        http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ … story.html

        Yeah he supports "domestic partnerships" separate but equal right? The language of segregationists and bigots everywhere EQUALITY UNDER THE LAW is the only acceptable solution in any just society.

        As for the economic bit it is a slow recovery because it is a global recession the second worst in history and the depression recovery was largely due to WW2 a slow recession compares awfully well with the crash and massive spending increases we had last term but this thread is not yet another rehash of the economic debate.

      3. rhamson profile image76
        rhamsonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        What is funny is that you have stated the very reason for the slow recovery within your answer. The reason why this recovery has been the slowest recovery ever since world war II is that it is the worst economic disaster since the great depression. Bush's policies of deregulation carried over from Clinton and the escallation of two unfunded wars did nothing to keep the crash from coming. Hoover did nothing to avert the crash of '29 citing market corrections world prevail on their own and the recession that ensued would be a short but sustainable one. Was he ever wrong and Romney is no different. We stared into the the abyss in 2008 and people have short memories especially when it comes to the fact that the market did not crash due to Bushs' and Obama's efforts to bail out wall street. The recovery being slow is relative only to being too slow for the impatient who forget where we came from. Romney has no new plan and I would rather have a slow recovery than going back to the failed ways of the past.

      4. Jillian Barclay profile image85
        Jillian Barclayposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        You posted the link. You did not read it, apparently. Suggest you look up the Personhood Amendment and re-read the party platform. Please take note of the platform portion that talks about abortion. Keep reading it until you actually comprehend it...

        1. profile image0
          SassySue1963posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Such drama. Which part are you speaking of? The one that bans the use of Federal funding for abortions? (already law). Or the one that makes it a crime for a doctor to NOT treat an infant who survives an abortion attempt? Or the ban on late term partial birth abortions, which by any sane person's standards is murder, plain and simple? You spoke of a ban on abortions in the platform. There isn't any such thing mentioned at all. Perhaps you should read it until you understand it. One is already law, one is about leaving viable infants who survive abortions untreated, and one is about not pulling 7 month old fetus's from the womb and slicing their spinal cord. Which one of those are you in favor of that you are taking such issue with?

          1. Jillian Barclay profile image85
            Jillian Barclayposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            SassySue,
            Download the PDF and go to page 13. It carries over to page 14.
            "...The Sanctity and Dignity of Human Life
            Faithful to the “self-evident” truths enshrined in
            the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity
            of human life and affirm that the unborn child
            has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot
            be infringed. We support a human life amendment
            to the Constitution and endorse legislation to
            make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections
            apply to unborn children. We oppose using
            public revenues to promote or perform abortion or
            fund organizations which perform or advocate it and
            will not fund or subsidize health care which includes
            abortion coverage. We support the appointment of
            judges who respect traditional family values and the
            sanctity of innocent human life..."

            For your information and just so we are clear: This is directly from the download of the document. It, for all intents and purposes, is the same as the Personhood Amendment ---NO EXCEPTIONS, period. None. Guaranteeing 14th amendment rights to a ferilized egg carries with it charges of murder for "killing that fertilized egg".

            You think that means tax-payer subsidized abortions only?  No. It means ALL!

            1. profile image0
              SassySue1963posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              For your perusal, an explanation of the intention behind the vague wording. Also why there are no exceptions given directly.

              http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezr … maybe-not/

              You do realize that a born individual can still be legally killed correct? That there are exceptions to the 14th amendment rights?

      5. Irish Shrew profile image81
        Irish Shrewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Sassy Sue- no drama just fact; someone already brought up the WWII reference, thank you so I didn't have to...but as far as your stance or rather Romney's; He has been endorsed by NOM. National Organization for Marriage. He is a major contributor. Now, you may say; well, that is about marriage. True, he also said " I want to leave it up to the individual states' (as to hospital visits, benefits, and the ability to adopt children). Now you probably could call me out on the aforementioned statements only because Romney has indeed said the polar opposite to various news agencies, like for instance; he told Fox News he believed in gay marriage but the next day on a CBS affiliate program-he said no, he meant that he " was observing a national consensus", that that was not his belief. You see when he thinks he is stating what someone wants to hear-his party says, Nay! He then, usually within 24 hours, says 'Oh I (1)mispoke, (2) didn't understand the question or (3) it wasn't eloquently spoken-that one is my favorite. Look up on the last debate on Lilly Ledbetter. Romney had been trying ferociously  to avoid that question. But the night of the debate he said he would NOT repeal the act. The next day his top adviser said no, he would appeal it. The next day he back stepped and said, " well he never weighed in on that'. The NEXT day a Romney aide said;, he opposed it! Look it up. Check Independent sites, PLEASE. In this campaign most people are not spot checking. They are drinking the Kool-Aide instead. Oh, and please, please, do yourself a favor. In your favorite search engine; plug in Governor Romney justifies no jobs as governor; well here, try this:  http://youtu.be/ArRj-dQXX3Y 
        You see even he knows job creation is not up to the President but Congress and he feels 3 1/2 years is not enough time to measure growth anyway. The man is a designer of flip flops. I'm not saying that Obama didn't have rose colored glasses on, because I think he thought he really could reach across the party lines-he was naive. The party didn't want to reach anywhere to fix the state of the country. Their only agenda was to make sure the President had only 4 years. Too bad, I'm not rich enough to divert my millions to offshore accounts......I hope you do. If not your are voting for someone that has absolutely no intention on fixing us, protecting our seniors, our youth, and our middle class. He will, however, protect his assets as he always has. Ask the Republicans of Massachusetts.

        1. profile image0
          SassySue1963posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I have a post further up I believe running through all the different misquotes from the media, that states the far right criticizing Romney because they believe he is too left on the issue of gay marriage and gay rights. I have never stated that Romney is for same sex marriage. He is not. He would indeed sign into a law an amendment to define marriage between a man and a woman. Only that he advocates for same sex couples to be afforded the rights of marriage in a domestic partnership.  As for flip flopping, really? Do you know how long the list would be for Obama? The most obvious one being the mandate? Which he lashed into Hillary Clinton for during the debates, called unconstitutional and a host of other names, and then a mere 6 months later, decided was great?

    2. tammybarnette profile image60
      tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Josak, I am a very liberal minded perso yet personally my values are very conservative. Last night I was watching the news as they were talking about Billy Graham removing mormonism from the cult list, and his son was speaking of our government going in the wrong direction, we have heard the "rhetoric," about this all year, but his point was not the economy but the social policy....I struggle with this greatly. I believe, by our Constitution, the Governoring bodies have no place in our personal liberties, I stand by the Seperation of Church and State, I am pro-choice and pro-gay marriage and to me these are basic human rights, no-brainers. However, after watching that on he news, I can see their point from a different perspective....The point of a country headed into an immoral abyss, and the impending doom of that reality. At this stage of the game, with the players lining up around the globe to play out that last chapter in the Good Book, I have found myself in an awkward conundrum...I believe in personal rights and liberties and I also believe in God, and can see what the Rev. Graham was speaking too in this country....

      1. Josak profile image60
        Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        There is nothing wrong with having faith so long as it's accepted as a personal choice that affects only those who consent to be affected by it.

        I also don't really see the immoral abyss, people marrying those they love aside I see crime statistics falling especially in violent crime and I see an increasingly tolerant public, personally I think people are getting more moral.

        1. tammybarnette profile image60
          tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I understand and agree with your points, as they are the points I use when agruing for human rights...The problem being that it is a distinction in the Bible. I do not believe my faith should be imposed and shoved down the throats of others, another reason I have been a long time democrat...Also by the Bible itself, all sins are the same, and I always argue this point with my family members especially as it pertains to gay rights in this country...My point only that Rev Graham, and obvious other universal signs are pointing to a place in time that causes my soul to cling to my faith, and pray deeply for our people and others...just a soul stirring time I suppose, and feeling so in the middle of my own personal beliefs and faith, thought it may show a middle ground of the dueling outliers.

    3. tirelesstraveler profile image87
      tirelesstravelerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Oh, thought you were talking about Democrats.

      1. Barefootfae profile image59
        Barefootfaeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        He does not see the correlation but it is so plainly there.

      2. Josak profile image60
        Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Nope on equal protection under the law I can't fault them, and really I doubt you can either.

    4. Humdrumconundrum profile image61
      Humdrumconundrumposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      It is simple. GREED. Republicans forget that Ronald Raygun lifted restrictions and legalized white collar crime. They also forget that GW Bush emptied out the treasury and gave it to the "private sector". I don't think anything like that has ever occurred in the history of the world.

      1. tirelesstraveler profile image87
        tirelesstravelerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Curious your comment on Bush giving to the private sector? . I thought I was part of the private sector.  Do you work for the Government? If you don't are you part of the private sector?

    5. profile image0
      Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      The current GOP rhetoric makes Bush look like a moderate.

    6. profile image71
      logic,commonsenseposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Last time I checked, the president cannot change the Constitution.  The GOP is no more racist than the Dems.  Can you say Robert Byrd, among others?

  2. innersmiff profile image79
    innersmiffposted 4 years ago

    'Antithesis to freedom'

    Agreed! Now, if I was American, who should I vote for instead to give me freedom?

    1. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      ... *crickets*  tongue

      I am voting Stewart Alexander.

      I see your point but in my book the freedom to marry who you choose, have equality under the law and choose if I want to have a child are more important than certain economic liberties.

      1. profile image0
        SassySue1963posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Gay couples have children (through surrogates or adoption). There is nothing at all in the agenda to promote a law that prevents that. Sure, you might have a Senator here or there, or on State by State levels, that are promoting such legislation, but that does not make it an agenda of the GOP.  How is there inequality under the law if all marriage rights are granted? You are making it about rights, and they are not being infringed. Which means it is not about rights at all but about restricting the freedom of religious institutions who hold a different belief and requiring them to perform religious ceremonies.

        1. Josak profile image60
          Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          *sigh* Marriage is not a religious institution and I am certainly not advocating forcing anyone to marry anyone (that would be as massive an infringement on personal freedoms as the GOP stance) marriage is a government granted license in the eyes of the law, going to a church is completely irrelevant to your legal status as married besides which there are I am sure plenty of churches willing to marry same sex couples.

          Equal but separate isn't equal and everyone should have equal rights an protections under the law therefore if one person can get a marriage license and one cannot that is discrimination and it's intolerable and immoral.

          1. profile image0
            SassySue1963posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            See here's the rub. I am inclined to agree with you. I see no reason for gay couples not to have civil unions just as heterosexual couples do. I see no reason they cannot have the ceremony, if the Church is not against it, either. However, I also can see the concerns from the other side. If you amend the Constitution to advocate marriage between same sex couples, they then have the right, under the Law, to force any and all religious institutions to perform such a ceremony.  If they refuse, a lawsuit will be filed (and we both know in our current sue happy mindset, someone will indeed file such a lawsuit) and the Church will lose because it is now guaranteed under the Constitution.  Which is why I think a domestic partnership, with all rights of marriage, is not discriminatory at all. No rights are being denied. And there is no possibility of using it to infringe on the rights of others.

            1. Josak profile image60
              Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Actually I don't see any reason to put either in the constitution, equal marriage should simply be part of the law, churches do and would continue to have the right to refuse to marry anyone they wish (quite recently even an interracial couple in Mississippi, perfectly legal) while same sex couples can get marriage licenses as equals and be married in those churches who are OK with marrying them. Win win.

              1. tammybarnette profile image60
                tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I am Southern Baptist, mt preacher had to appear befor his board and council to attain permission to marry my husband and I because we have both been divorced. Yes, churches can always have the last word about their participation as they already do...

                1. profile image0
                  SassySue1963posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  First off, it wasn't an interrracial couple. It was an African American couple. Second off, people ARE calling for the government to get involved. Do you know it fits the definition of a hate crime? That the Church can be prosecuted under that Law?
                  Now, I completely find it revolting however, it is my point regarding gay marriage. You believe it is fine for the Church to decline based on their beliefs, however, it only takes one person. Look at the things we sue about at the drop of a hat. You don't think some couple who was refused would file a civil rights violation claim if it was law? I completely disagree. You are making a talking point out of a piece of paper. If all rights are granted, then there is no discrimination because of an absence of a simple piece of paper. Which makes it not about rights at all but about having the ability to force others to adhere to your personal belief system. That is my opinion. You have yours.

                  1. tammybarnette profile image60
                    tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I understand  but to me it's not just paper. I do not believe any church should be forced to marry anyone, I do believe that gay persons wishing a true marriage have the choice to find a place that will honor that request. The language of the law need not tie a church to any practice, and the Church should not be able to tie a person to any practice...

                2. A Troubled Man profile image61
                  A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Interesting, if the board ruled in favor of not allowing you to get married, would you have done so anyways? Of course, I'm assuming they allowed it.

                  1. tammybarnette profile image60
                    tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Yes, I would have found a way, in a beautiful garden or such, with a preacher of a different opinion, I would have found a way.

        2. profile image0
          Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          "but that does not make it an agenda of the GOP."

          How many members of the Republican party endorse gay marriage?  The GOP platform calls for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.  It is part of the party's platform.  http://finance.yahoo.com/news/gop-oks-p … 47742.html

          Oklahomans voted in 2004 to amend the Oklahoma constitution to re-define marriage as between one man and one woman.  True to form in most conservative states, bigotry won.   

          Why is it that the only states that allow gay marriage are liberal ones?  Is this just a funny coincidence?

          I'm sorry, but it's false to claim that discriminating against homosexuals is not on the GOP's agenda.

          1. profile image0
            SassySue1963posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Please stop reading biased BS reports. I've already posted a link here to the ACTUAL platform. There is nothing in there at all about banning gay marriage. They do not support it, that's true, but Romney does support a domestic partnership granting marriage rights.

            1. profile image0
              Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              You failed to answer why the majority of GOP politicians do not support gay marriage, including Mitt Romney.  I guess it's true that it IS on the agenda...

              The yahoo article stole its information from the Associated Press.

              Do you trust Fox?  They use the same Associated Press article. - http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08 … -marriage/  Is this a "biased BS report"?

              Furthermore, it's odd you would deny something that is easily verifiable.  The GOP platform is available online here- http://www.gop.com/2012-republican-plat … ing/#Item1

              "The institution of marriage is the foundation of civil society. Its success as an institution will determine our success as a nation. It has been proven by both experience and endless social science studies that traditional marriage is best for children. Children raised in intact married families are more likely to attend college, are physically and emotionally healthier, are less likely to use drugs or alcohol, engage in crime, or get pregnant outside of marriage. The success of marriage directly impacts the economic well-being of individuals. Furthermore, the future of marriage affects freedom. The lack of family formation not only leads to more government costs, but also to more government control over the lives of its citizens in all aspects. We recognize and honor the courageous efforts of those who bear the many burdens of parenting alone, even as we believe that marriage, the union of one man and one woman must be upheld as the national standard, a goal to stand for, encourage, and promote through laws governing marriage. We embrace the principle that all Americans should be treated with respect and dignity."

              What does it mean to uphold it as a national standard, and a "goal to stand for, encourage, and promote through laws governing marriage?  I'm rather confused how laws can be used to maintain marriage as between one man and one woman without ensuring that homosexuals are not given the same right as heterosexuals.  Would you please enlighten me?

              1. profile image0
                SassySue1963posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                What did I just say? They do not support same sex marriage. Romney (I can't speak for every politician in the GOP because they have not all spoken out one way or another) supports a domestic partnership with all rights of marriage. Josak and I just had this entire conversation. All rights of marriage, including, but not limited to, healthcare and survivorship.  Once again I ask, if it is truly about rights, and not shoving one's lifestyle  upon those who disagree with it, what is the problem? A lack of a piece of paper? Josak countered with the whole "separate but equal" line. Which doesn't apply because no one is saying you can't eat, go to school, use rest rooms, water fountains, etc just because of your life style. 
                I might also add that I already stated on a personal level, I really have no issue at all with same sex marriage. The issue becomes if it is law, it can be used to force churches whose beliefs differ to perform same sex marriages.
                I must say that I find it ironic that it is fine with the left leaning visitors here to shove one's beliefs down the throat of Christians by wanting to force them to fund abortions (by way of tax dollars) and force religious organizations to provide for healthcare that funds abortions, things countering their very core beliefs, but withholding a piece of paper, even if all rights are granted, is somehow discriminatory and bigotry and hatred.

                1. Barefootfae profile image59
                  Barefootfaeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Sue the continue struggle for them is to try and make us sit down and shut up and let them reign.
                  I only ask you look at California and Greece.

                  1. profile image0
                    SassySue1963posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    It is illogical thinking and it just makes my brain go ouch. They have forgotten the word "compromise" . It means nothing to them. I thought granting all rights of marriage under a domestic partnership was a good compromise. It gave all rights of marriage to same sex couples yet did not mandate same sex marriage under law to be used against churches who believe differently. Which only proves it is not about compromise at all, nor rights they believe they are being denied. It is about shoving same sex marriage down the throats of anyone who holds a different belief.

                2. profile image0
                  Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  What did I just say? They do not support same sex marriage. Romney (I can't speak for every politician in the GOP because they have not all spoken out one way or another) supports a domestic partnership with all rights of marriage.

                  So Romney is in favor of giving homosexual couples all the benefits married couples receive, minus calling it marriage?  I'd like a citation for this.

                  Mitt Romney's own website claims he will defend the Defense of Marriage Act, which excludes same-sex couples from receiving federal benefits.

                  "Marriage is more than a personally rewarding social custom. It is also critical for the well-being of a civilization. That is why it is so important to preserve traditional marriage – the joining together of one man and one woman. As president, Mitt will not only appoint an Attorney General who will defend the Defense of Marriage Act – a bipartisan law passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton – but he will also champion a Federal Marriage Amendment to the Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman."- http://www.mittromney.com/issues/values


                  Once again I ask, if it is truly about rights, and not shoving one's lifestyle  upon those who disagree with it, what is the problem? A lack of a piece of paper? Josak countered with the whole "separate but equal" line. Which doesn't apply because no one is saying you can't eat, go to school, use rest rooms, water fountains, etc just because of your life style.

                  IT IS ABOUT RIGHTS!  Why would you even claim such a thing?  Furthermore, if you are refusing to put one group of people on equal footing with another, it is discrimination.  29 states still allow employers to fire people for being gay.  Your claim about equality already existing is demonstrably false!      http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/p … ill-legal/  Of course, Oklahoma, where I live, again makes the list for bigotry.


                  I might also add that I already stated on a personal level, I really have no issue at all with same sex marriage. The issue becomes if it is law, it can be used to force churches whose beliefs differ to perform same sex marriages.

                  I am glad to see you have no problem with it.  You are farther along than half of the people in this country. 

                  Do you think churches should have the right to refuse to marry interracial couples?  I personally believe any church should have the right to accept or refuse to perform a ceremony for anyone, since there are alternatives to getting a license.  However, for those who do refuse, they should have their tax exempt status revoked, and they should be forced to put up a sign in front of their church that claims they don't perform same-sex or interracial weddings, that way inquiring parties can know where their time will be most effectively used.  Furthermore, they would not be allowed to make protesters leave their property, until they decided to wise up. 


                  I must say that I find it ironic that it is fine with the left leaning visitors here to shove one's beliefs down the throat of Christians by wanting to force them to fund abortions (by way of tax dollars) and force religious organizations to provide for healthcare that funds abortions, things countering their very core beliefs, but withholding a piece of paper, even if all rights are granted, is somehow discriminatory and bigotry and hatred.

                  Welcome to the modern era.  I don't want my tax dollars going to fund a bloated defense budget, corporate subsidies, or bailouts for banks.  Yet, that is the reality of the situation.

                  In addition, most opposition to abortion is based on a RELIGIOUS belief.  There is no secular basis to say a fertilized egg is equivalent to a human being.  Any argument that attempts so is absurd.  We don't live in a theocracy.  Sorry to burst your bubble.  Institutions of illusion (churches) are becoming less and less relevant as people realize they are offering nothing in terms of morality that is unique to their status in society.  Evaluating moral principles is much more elucidating than blindly following what a priest or pastor says about how to interpret a book that condones slavery and sexism.

                  I'll finish by returning to my previous point about interracial marriage.  Is it bigoted and discriminatory for a church to refuse to marry an interracial couple?  Or, another hypothetical: would you have preferred the interracial marriage debate to be solved by claiming the couples could enter into "civil unions" with all the same rights as married couples, but just not call it marriage?

                  1. profile image0
                    SassySue1963posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    " However, for those who do refuse, they should have their tax exempt status revoked"

                    Thank you for making my point in this entire argument. YOU are the very reason that it should not be law. YOU would have your beliefs shoved down the throats of people who simply do not share your beliefs. Or else! YOU are no different than those you denigrate. Congratulations.

                    And there you go Josak. Exactly why there should not be a law.

                    There is a fundamental difference in the eyes of the church in regards to race and same sex marriage. One is still between a man and a woman. One is not.

                    I never said everything was equal now. The question was regarding Romney's stance and he states he is for a domestic partnership with marriage rights. So tell me again what right you would be denied?

                    You've already proven your underlying agenda with your paragraph on forcing churches to accept this or else! And that was my entire argument anyway. That it only takes one such as yourself to turn it into forcing your belief on those who believe differently.

      2. innersmiff profile image79
        innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        It's not just economic liberty that I'm concerned about - there is also growing militarism and police state that both major parties support. If I were gay, I think  I could wait to get married if, theoretically, these issues were tackled first.

      3. Repairguy47 profile image60
        Repairguy47posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Every American has the same right to marry.

  3. Barefootfae profile image59
    Barefootfaeposted 4 years ago

    I am struck by the fact I am never given a reason to want to keep Barack Obama(Bronco Bomma...love it).
    But there is always a message that projects as much fear as is possible.
    I am old enough to know at the end of the day they are both just politicians.
    Someone needs to get me to actually believe there is a good reason for a particular man and so far I see none.
    I am perfectly happy in the belief that no matter who the Republican nominee was it would be the same rhetoric. It's the ideology.

    1. tammybarnette profile image60
      tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I understand what you mean...to me however this election is different than any other in history. I am concerned with my rights as a woman for myself, my 4 daughters and all of our daughters....I also trust Obama's economic policy to be the better choice, I also believe we are a safer country under the leadership of Obama, and agree with his foriegn policy. I have done a lot of research and found him to be the better choice. I guess you should vote for the person you believe has your best interest.

    2. Mighty Mom profile image90
      Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Are you a centrist feeling that the rhetoric on both sides is too extreme for you?
      Or do you not feel that the candidates have done a good job stating what they represent?
      If the total package is lacking for you, is there not one issue that strikes your heart in such a way that you feel the need to either protect it or change it?

      1. Barefootfae profile image59
        Barefootfaeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I feel like the fact that I am looking at news reports from New York where the people are given cookies and hot chocolate by the Red Cross, no food or blankets or anything.
        When someone actually steps up and does something,
        And yes.....they CAN do something I may pay attention.
        The media has electricity....the people don't.
        Please don't tell e who did what there because obviously they haven't.

        And no....there is no difference in the parties except who is willing to create what level of fear this week. They are all full of it. You know that too.

      2. Barefootfae profile image59
        Barefootfaeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        What I am is tired of the white hat/black hat rhetoric when it's a lie.

        1. tammybarnette profile image60
          tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I vote for policies that I believe represent myself and myideology of what our contry should represent as per our constitution, I don't see it as black and white hats. I pay attention to how they vote, and what they therefore believe.

          1. Barefootfae profile image59
            Barefootfaeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Well I am glad you do. The OP of this forum does not line up with that.

            1. Josak profile image60
              Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              We agree more than you might think as Tammy pointed out I am not voting for either party/candidate, I just can't abide bigotry which is why I made this post, neither side is entirely innocent but on this issue there is a clear line.

              1. Barefootfae profile image59
                Barefootfaeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I think you are seeing the line that was put there for you to see. It does not necessarily exist in the form you have been led to believe.

                It's called prestidigitation.

                1. Josak profile image60
                  Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I grew up campaigning for and speaking out on these issues more than 50 years ago in a Catholic country with five other long haired nuts who read too much, we were generally laughed at even in leftist circles. Fast forward and in 2010 gay marriage was legalized in my home country. Yeah I see a line but not because it was put there to see but because I have always hated injustice and inequality, there is a big difference between partisanship and conviction.

          2. Barefootfae profile image59
            Barefootfaeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Now you do realize I am slapping both parties here right?

            1. tammybarnette profile image60
              tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Of course I do, and believe we need more choices, as well as does the author of this forum, who I believe has said he will vote for neither of the top parties

              1. Barefootfae profile image59
                Barefootfaeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Yes but only one is ever an issue...............
                people in New York are freaking out. I am struck by how quickly it developed into a complete breakdown,a cautionary tale for all.
                They need help. We have Katrina in reverse. If Barack wants back in he better step up.

                1. tammybarnette profile image60
                  tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Wow, I haven't read the papers this morning. I know how hard hit NY was, and with there infrastructure in a shambles I knew this would be very difficult and expensive...I have donated to the Red Cross, are you guys up there not getting what you need? How can citizens help more?

                  1. Barefootfae profile image59
                    Barefootfaeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I am not up there.
                    Union electricians in New Jersey won't let non-union workers from Alabama who came up to help work on their lines.

  4. Barefootfae profile image59
    Barefootfaeposted 4 years ago

    So have I been missing out and there is no bigotry or hatred in the Democrat party?
    Do you think me stupid?
    A large part of my problem is THIS continual diatribe which I once again am old enough to know better and was raised Democrat so I REALLY know better.
    I hope after this election cycle is over with we find some other message besides GEORGE BUSH and FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR!

    1. tammybarnette profile image60
      tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I am sorry you lost me, I am not voting on fear. The Romney ticket said they would overturn Roe V Wade and they do not believe healthcare insurance should cover birthcontrol...that is their position, it doesn't represent what I believe, so I would not vote for them mysef...you should vote for the person you believe represents your beliefs.

      1. Barefootfae profile image59
        Barefootfaeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Now Tammy do you really think they will do those things? i don't and not because I believe good/evil I believe it's a politician playing to a base.

        Just saw anther article where Harry Reid laughed at the idea of co-operating with Romney. There ya go. four more years of nothing. Courtesy of the most partisan Senate Majority Leader in the history of the nation.
        Of course it would work the same the other way around. All they want is the money and the power. You and I don't matter and I don't care what party you are that is true.

        1. tammybarnette profile image60
          tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I do understand the corruption, I do believe we must pay attention. I have actually joined a group called the house fire project that was put together by another hubber who is a conservative by the way and voting for Romney, but his organization is beginning to take shape, and tthe goal is to fight abuse and corruption at the top...This being said, I also have witnessed Obama do many things that represent my beliefs, therefore I will vote for him.

          1. Barefootfae profile image59
            Barefootfaeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Ok...at least you have a reason.

  5. BloodRedPen profile image72
    BloodRedPenposted 4 years ago

    Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong/Right smile I seem to recall - The recent Democratic National Convention. Where they removed all references to GOD from their platform. Then "BOOed" when the Ohio delegation ask for GOD to be reinserted. That sounds like the party of tolerance and inclusion to me.

    1. profile image0
      SassySue1963posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Come now, BloodRedPen. They are very tolerant and inclusive. As long as you're not Christian, or at least, not THAT Christian where you feel the need to express it. Or hold any Christian beliefs.

      Once upon a time, a man in a tie & suit was considered dignified. Here, they decide that makes him "stiff" and "uncaring".
      I'm sure that Bomber Jacket of the President's wasn't brought out for any other reason than he just liked the way it looked either. *rolls eyes*

      Sorry, but my vote for President isn't bought by "cool".

      1. tammybarnette profile image60
        tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I am THAT Christian, who states it regularly, and I am a democrat, go figure roll

        1. profile image0
          SassySue1963posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          "That sounds like the PARTY of tolerance and inclusion to me."

          As an individual, I'm certain you are, and do state it regularly.

          As a Party, it is not deemed acceptable nor encouraged by the Democrats. Why do you think they removed God from their platform?
          A serious question for a Christian Democrat. I 'd really like your take on that.

          1. tammybarnette profile image60
            tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I was happy to see this replaced in the Platform, and have since noticed his dedication to Isreal. Being a Democrat I naturally support the Constitution and the Seperation of Church and State, I do not feel the need to cram my faith down others throats. I also am the type of person to recognize that actions speak louder than words.

            1. profile image0
              SassySue1963posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Yes, I figured as a Christian you were glad they replaced it. I meant, why do you think they took God out in the first place?
              Actions speak louder than words. Good. I would think the actions of removing God from the platform, and booing the return of God to the platform, should be enlightening to you about the Democratic Party and where the Party stands on that issue. Not everyone, naturally, but enough to make a lot of noise on National television.

              1. tammybarnette profile image60
                tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                My personal belief is the booing was sensationalized. I do know however many Americans have different faiths and many do not believe in any God. I would make a guess and say that Obama, as a leader, made the call to not let those of different faiths etc. to feel unincluded. The DNC had a plethora of different faiths and ethnicities; I believe he truly wanted all to be in a welcoming enviroment...inclusion of all.

                1. profile image0
                  SassySue1963posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Did you watch? Did you hear? Clearly there was not a majority for putting God back in. Clearly, they ignored that fact and did it any way. So very democratic of them. No it wasn't sensationalized. It happened and it's on video. Really can't dispute it.
                  Inclusiveness. Really. So what was the reason for putting it back in then? We could go round and round here. Basically, they removed it because they just really do not support God. Not all, there are some such as yourself, but you are fast becoming the minority in your chosen Party. They put it back in because it became a political problem for the President.

                  1. tammybarnette profile image60
                    tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Sassy, Actually it is not only the D party, I heard a report a couple of days ago on my local news that people are moving away from "religion" in droves...I believe this is a sign of the times, not just a D party problem. I feel no need to shove mt beliefs on anyone, but I also will not change them for anyone...Anyone I talk to about God in the forums for instance, if they are curios I ablige, if not, it is not my place to save the world. I live my life for my God, I pray for others to open their eyes, as for politics and government, I hold to the constitution and seperate the two.

          2. TIMETRAVELER2 profile image92
            TIMETRAVELER2posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            As for removing "God", etc...whose God are you talking about?  Do you think the Christian God is the only God?  If so, you are wearing blinders.  The government is supposed to represent ALL of the people, not just Christians.  Removing the word God and references to it is an attempt to separate Church and State...which is exactly the way things are supposed to be.  Doing so doesn't mean the politicos don't believe in God, it just means they respect the beliefs of others, including Atheists...ALL of whom are Americans.

            1. Barefootfae profile image59
              Barefootfaeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Yes...I believe the God of Abraham Issac and Jacob is the only God.
              What's wrong with that?

    2. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      That is not what happened at all, the booing was about the support for Israel which was in the same sentence.

      1. Barefootfae profile image59
        Barefootfaeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        It was for both.

  6. rebekahELLE profile image91
    rebekahELLEposted 4 years ago

    I believe in large part religious extremism has taken over the far right wing of the GOP.  It is hardly recognizable as the Republican party that my parents generation were a part of.  And I say, a part of, meaning they voted in elections.  They didn't brand themselves with a party label.  They were decent human beings who voted at election time.  They would be amazed at what has happened to the GOP.

    1. tammybarnette profile image60
      tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I agree!

    2. profile image0
      SassySue1963posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Sometimes I wonder if comments left such as yours are read over by their authors. Do they ever re-read them and become enlightened as to how their own bigotry shines through with such comments?
      I am always amazed that anyone who supports the right of a child to live rather than die is immediately branded a "right wing extremist". If I had time, I'd make a list for everyone. The extremists within the Democratic Party would be miles longer.

      1. tammybarnette profile image60
        tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Sassy, my problem with your statement here and the right wing in general as to this subject, you are not pro-life, you are pro-fetus...because once the child is born the Republican party no longer has any interest in the actual LIFE of this child! Whether it eats or has healthcare, or goes to school, only that the child must be born...That is ridiculous...When the right comes out with a plan that will actually care for the life of the child then I will listen...otherwise it is a talking point and rhetoric.

        1. BloodRedPen profile image72
          BloodRedPenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Tammy - I would have to say It's not a political party or the governments responsibility to care for that child. It's the parent and if (and only if) the parent doesn't have the ability to do so should the community (church and charity) step in.

          1. tammybarnette profile image60
            tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Which is the case for many, and I am sorry, but the church is not that big brick building, it is the people and those same people pay taxes that help those children, but you can not have it both ways...you want to support a real pro-life approach, then you take the responsibility for that life, period.

        2. profile image0
          SassySue1963posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          And I would say Tammy, my problem with your attitude is any lack of responsibility. There are a plethora of birth control methods available, some 99% reliable, use them. Abortion should be a last resort of extreme duress. Mothers' life in danger, rape or incest. Not the Termination department for those too irresponsible to obtain birth control.
          Any child in America can get healthcare for free or rates based on income. In PA , it is called CHIP. Not sure the name is the same in every state, but it is available in every single state. And that was well before ObamaCare. There are all sorts of programs in place to aid unwed mothers' both during pregnancy and after birth.

          1. tammybarnette profile image60
            tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Sassy, first I have had three children, I was taking birth control with each and every one...so there goes that arguement, And to the rest of your arguement, just give me a break, wow, what a great life, be shoved through poverty and systems of abuse, but by goodness your here! Give me a break! You must never have seen poverty in front of your face, or abuse, or known someone sexually abused in the system to make such statements...So some crack prostitute, who is irresponsible, should have that poor crack addicted child that nobody wants to grow up in a life of pain! I tell you what, you go adopt a bunch of crack babies and I will respect your arguement, otherwise your whizzing in the wind!

            1. profile image0
              SassySue1963posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              So wait, let me understand this. If you make a mistake in choices, if you engage in activities that you know can result in certain undesirable results, it is the Government's job to bail you out? And if they don't, you then have the right to choose life or death for another? So any mother who makes a bad choice and finds herself in a tough spot should then be allowed to terminate her children's lives if it is inconvenient for her now? Or if because of that choice her children could go hungry? That is the argument you are making.  If Joe punches Jane in the stomach, killing her unborn child, he is charged with manslaughter (at the least, he could be charged with murder). If Jane kills her unborn child it is choice. In essence the entire pro-abortion argument is one of whether or not the mother WANTS said child. That is the only thing that gives that life value.

              1. tammybarnette profile image60
                tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Sassy, as you know I am a Christian and do not support abortion, personally...but, I am a realist who does not live in a fantasy land that believes if the government, unconstitutionally by the way, outlaws abortion and birthcontrol, this WILL NOT make bad people be good people! It will just be the same way it was in the 60's with a backroom and a hanger...Republicans need to get out of people's personal business, if they want small government, keep you social policy out, it is contradictory

                1. profile image0
                  SassySue1963posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Don't put words in my mouth. Never said anything about outlawing birth control, in fact, I said it was readily available and to use it. Personal business is one thing. Like forcing people to purchase things then taxing them if they can't afford it. I'm not sure how the termination of a life is considered personal business. If that is the case, wouldn't many crimes fall under that category? If outlawing something doesn't make bad people be good people (not saying it does btw) and is considered living in fantasy land, why have laws at all then? If no law is going to stop bad people from being bad people, what is the point? You are still advocating that line of no responsibility for actions you choose. (not you personally, just general you). As an example, I'm sure that what transpires between a couple would be construed as personal business, yet, we have laws regarding the treatment of one's partner do we not? So the Party of tolerance and inclusion, somehow has no place for God and no care for unborn life, unless their mothers' want them.

                  1. Mighty Mom profile image90
                    Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    This could be your best post ever.
                    This deserves a prize for not only the most circuitous logic, but the highest number of circuitous arguments within a single post.

                    Anyone got some beer to go with all these pretzels?
                    smile

                  2. tammybarnette profile image60
                    tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Sassy, This is what I see, I see divorce rate at 50%, I see children having children, I see poverty stricken ignorant people becoming pregnant, and I see abuse,I would rather support a law that relieves a child the pain of a predestined destructive hurtful life. I believe my view sends that fetus straight back to Jesus, where there is no pain, and that is how this Christian woman can support abortion rights.

      2. rebekahELLE profile image91
        rebekahELLEposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I don't see bigotry at all in my post.  If you see it, it's not mine. 

        I was responding to the OP.

        1. profile image0
          SassySue1963posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          "It is hardly recognizable as the Republican party that my parents generation were a part of.  And I say, a part of, meaning they voted in elections.  They didn't brand themselves with a party label.  They were decent human beings who voted at election time."

          Do you think the Democratic Party would be recognizable to one of your parents' time? Do you think all GOP voters brand themselves? Your parents were decent human beings compared to what exactly? All current members of the Republican party?

          I'm sure you're going to say that isn't what you meant but that is what I was referring to when I said about re-reading posts.

  7. tammybarnette profile image60
    tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago

    Just wanted to share this video here, it is Romney talking about abortion and mormonism on a radio show, so the content fits the forum discussion, however most noticable to me is the demeanor in which he speaks.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxMD02zU9SE

    1. profile image0
      SassySue1963posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I like how your choice for that video comes in at the middle lol

      Here is the bit from the beginning, you'll see that he is told how he distanced himself from his faith...which is the reason for his demeanor. Also, I might point out this is from 2007 as well.

      http://video.theweek.com/video/Romney-l … 20launched

      1. tammybarnette profile image60
        tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Sassy, I think that is the wrong link, I am just way too nice of a person not too just be quite and let it stand, but all I saw were Obama endorsements

        1. profile image0
          SassySue1963posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Thanks Tammy. That's what I get for visiting the forums while talking on the phone at the same time lol

          http://video.theweek.com/video/Romney-l … -with-radi

 
working